Notes on an Indictment

A letter in response to Jeffrey Toobin’s article (January 3, 2011)

Jeffrey Toobin, in his article on Nicholas Marsh and the Ted Stevens case, writes that the indictment alleges that “Stevens had paid Veco for the renovations—just not enough to cover the true costs,” but this is misleading (“Casualties of Justice,” January 3rd). The indictment states five times that Stevens never directly paid Bill Allen or Veco Corporation anything for their renovation work, and any payments made by Stevens were indirect—made only to other venders and contractors hired by Veco. Toobin also refers to the “Torricelli note,” in which Stevens reminded Allen that he owed him a bill “for all the work on the chalet,” as “Stevens’s best evidence” of his innocence. But Nick never saw the need to discredit the note; he always believed that it was strong evidence of Stevens’s guilt, because the note made it clear that Stevens knew he was indebted to Allen and Veco, a debt that, whether it was a gift or a liability, he was required to disclose. Perhaps some see Stevens’s crimes as trivial, and believe that he should not have been prosecuted for disclosure violations, but Nick believed that it was important for public officials to adhere to the rules in order to maintain the public’s trust. I recently learned that Nick had insisted on paying a colleague thirteen dollars when she gave him a mug as a gift, because he didn’t want to violate federal-employee ethics rules. Despite any mistakes accidentally made in execution, the legacy of the investigation led by Nicholas Marsh is worthy of praise and respect, not criticism.

Joshua B. Waxman

Laurel, Md.

Sign up to get the best of The New Yorker delivered to your inbox every day